"OnTheIce" saidThe only reason they're pushing for this is because of the headlines recently.

Short memory syndrome...

NDP wants referendum to abolish Senate (February 28, 2011)

... And the best one.

NDP-Tory plan won't get through Senate: experts (Nov. 6, 2007)

A constitutional expert says Prime Minister Stephen Harper's support of the NDP plan to hold a nationwide referendum on abolition of the unelected Senate is likely little more than political posturing....Insiders say Harper is prepared to support an NDP motion that would call for a national referendum on Senate abolition at the time of the next general election that is set for October 2009...."Quite a few premiers have already said that they support the idea of the abolition of the Senate -- from all parties," Layton told Mike Duffy Live.

That was back when he could blame the Liberals in the Senate for not doing this.

Funny, in the USA there's a number of states looking to reverse the popular election of the Senate and return the Senate to being appointed by the states so that they represent their states again and not just the two national political parties.

That was back when he could blame the Liberals in the Senate for not doing this.

And what did the NDP do with the Liberals back in 2008? Look into their coalition agreement and various senate appointments the NDP pushed for.I guess the Senate is OK when you make deals to fill it with your people but when it's clearly not going your way, it's time to abolish it.

Check into it, and let's compare who has the short-term memory issue.

The NDP continually displays why they'll be back in the 3rd place position they so rightly deserve.

They hop from one popular media issue to another just looking to get some media attention and then disappear into obscurity until the next opportunity to get headlines comes to the surface.

"BartSimpson" saidFunny, in the USA there's a number of states looking to reverse the popular election of the Senate and return the Senate to being appointed by the states so that they represent their states again and not just the two national political parties.

But then wouldn't they pretty much just represent whichever of the parties the governer who appointed them belongs to?

"Unsound" saidFunny, in the USA there's a number of states looking to reverse the popular election of the Senate and return the Senate to being appointed by the states so that they represent their states again and not just the two national political parties.

But then wouldn't they pretty much just represent whichever of the parties the governer who appointed them belongs to?

The state organizations are 100% independent of the national organizations. Therefore the appointees would serve the interests of their states ahead of their national organizations. Where most state constitutions required 2/3 legislative approval on Senate appointees that also mostly guarantees minority parties to have a voice in the process which is something they don't have in a winner-take-all elected system.

"BartSimpson" saidFunny, in the USA there's a number of states looking to reverse the popular election of the Senate and return the Senate to being appointed by the states so that they represent their states again and not just the two national political parties.

I've met a few people who support this, and I use the Canadian Senate as an example of why we shouldn't go back to having states appoint Senators. We shouldn't have appointed politicians voting on legislation except under extreme circumstances (Governor appointing replacement Senator - though I would prefer a special election - and President Ford.)

"BartSimpson" saidThe state organizations are 100% independent of the national organizations. Therefore the appointees would serve the interests of their states ahead of their national organizations. Where most state constitutions required 2/3 legislative approval on Senate appointees that also mostly guarantees minority parties to have a voice in the process which is something they don't have in a winner-take-all elected system.

It could help depolarize the Senate.

It would be good if they could "de-polarize" but I'm not convinced that it would work. Even if the state and federal parties are seperate, I think that just sharing a name and, one would assume ideology, would likely be enough to cause them to band together. From what I understand of the pork-barreling that goes on in the senate, most of them look out for their own states first anyways.

It would be good if they could "de-polarize" but I'm not convinced that it would work. Even if the state and federal parties are seperate, I think that just sharing a name and, one would assume ideology, would likely be enough to cause them to band together. From what I understand of the pork-barreling that goes on in the senate, most of them look out for their own states first anyways.

How much shared ideology between state and federal parties anyways?

The state and national organizations are not always in step. Some Democrat state organizations (Vermont and Alaska for certain) are pro-Second Amendment over the protests of the DNC. The Northeastern state Republican organizations are liberal enough that they'd be conservative Democrats in most of the South. California's state GOP is $800,000 in debt and on the verge of insolvency and the national GOP has made it clear that they don't care mostly because the California GOP is an obstructionist organization that seems to actively stymie Republican efforts in California. I agree with that point of view having experienced the CA GOP firsthand.

You're right about the pork-barreling in the Senate but you'd be blown away by just how much bipartisan collusion goes on with some of that stuff. It's part of why I agree with the California Democrats that appointed Senators would be less likely to collude with their national parties.

In states like Illinois and New York the Senators are practically annointed/appointed/whatever anyhow so the change would be little noticed in those states anyway.

"OnTheIce" saidAnd what did the NDP do with the Liberals back in 2008? Look into their coalition agreement and various senate appointments the NDP pushed for.I guess the Senate is OK when you make deals to fill it with your people but when it's clearly not going your way, it's time to abolish it.

Check into it, and let's compare who has the short-term memory issue.

The NDP continually displays why they'll be back in the 3rd place position they so rightly deserve.

They hop from one popular media issue to another just looking to get some media attention and then disappear into obscurity until the next opportunity to get headlines comes to the surface.

The NDP has been calling for abolition of the senate for 50 years. Yours is the only party that be called "their usual opportunist selves". The CPC is the one that continually changes their position on the issue. They've recently moved from the NDP position to the Liberal position of referring the matter to the supreme court, and trying to reform the senate.

The only thing consistent about the CPC position is the status-quo. They are running out of ways to stall reform.

The NDP has been calling for abolition of the senate for 50 years. Yours is the only party that be called "their usual opportunist selves". The CPC is the one that continually changes their position on the issue. They've recently moved from the NDP position to the Liberal position of referring the matter to the supreme court, and trying to reform the senate.

The only thing consistent about the CPC position is the status-quo. They are running out of ways to stall reform.

If the NDP has been so anti-Senate, why the need to specifically include NDP appointed Senators in the 2008 coalition deal with the Liberals?

The CPC was stubborn and finally took the issue to the SC where it has to go anyways to clarify what can and cannot be done. The NDP knows that and knows that their bill means dick-all until the decision comes from the SC.

That was back when he could blame the Liberals in the Senate for not doing this.

And what did the NDP do with the Liberals back in 2008? Look into their coalition agreement and various senate appointments the NDP pushed for.I guess the Senate is OK when you make deals to fill it with your people but when it's clearly not going your way, it's time to abolish it.

Check into it, and let's compare who has the short-term memory issue.

The NDP continually displays why they'll be back in the 3rd place position they so rightly deserve.

They hop from one popular media issue to another just looking to get some media attention and then disappear into obscurity until the next opportunity to get headlines comes to the surface.

You do understand that you don't have to agree with every single posistion to enter into a coalition right? It's not the same thing as a merger.